On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 11:50 AM Bruce Richardson
<bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:16:48PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > GCC 12 raises the following warning:
> >
> > In function ‘__rte_ring_enqueue_elems_64’,
> > inlined from ‘__rte_ring_enqueue_elems’ at
> > ../lib/ring/rte_ring_elem_pvt.h:130:3,
> > inlined from ‘__rte_ring_do_hts_enqueue_elem’ at
> > ../lib/ring/rte_ring_hts_elem_pvt.h:196:3,
> > inlined from ‘rte_ring_mp_hts_enqueue_burst_elem’ at
> > ../lib/ring/rte_ring_hts.h:110:9,
> > inlined from ‘rte_ring_enqueue_burst_elem’ at
> > ../lib/ring/rte_ring_elem.h:577:10,
> > inlined from ‘rte_ring_enqueue_burst’ at
> > ../lib/ring/rte_ring.h:738:9,
> > inlined from ‘process_op_bit’ at
> > ../drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/pmd_snow3g.c:425:16,
> > inlined from ‘snow3g_pmd_dequeue_burst’ at
> > ../drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/pmd_snow3g.c:484:20:
> > ../lib/ring/rte_ring_elem_pvt.h:68:44: error: array subscript 1 is
> > outside array bounds of ‘struct rte_crypto_op[0]’
> > [-Werror=array-bounds]
> > 68 | ring[idx + 1] = obj[i + 1];
> > | ~~~^~~~~~~
> > ../drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/pmd_snow3g.c: In function
> > ‘snow3g_pmd_dequeue_burst’:
> > ../drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/pmd_snow3g.c:434:1: note:
> > at offset 8 into object ‘op’ of size 8
> > 434 | snow3g_pmd_dequeue_burst(void *queue_pair,
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Validate that one (exactly) op has been processed or return early.
> >
> > Fixes: b537abdbee74 ("crypto/snow3g: support bit-level operations")
> > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/pmd_snow3g.c | 7 ++++---
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/pmd_snow3g.c
> > b/drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/pmd_snow3g.c
> > index ebc9a0b562..9a85f46721 100644
> > --- a/drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/pmd_snow3g.c
> > +++ b/drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/pmd_snow3g.c
> > @@ -422,12 +422,13 @@ process_op_bit(struct rte_crypto_op *op, struct
> > snow3g_session *session,
> > op->sym->session = NULL;
> > }
> >
> > - enqueued_op = rte_ring_enqueue_burst(qp->ingress_queue,
> > - (void **)&op, processed_op, NULL);
> > + if (unlikely(processed_op != 1))
> > + return 0;
> > + enqueued_op = rte_ring_enqueue(qp->ingress_queue, op);
>
> As a fix for the compiler warning this looks ok, but question for
> maintainer would be - should this check for processed_op != 1 not go
> earlier in the function, immediately after the switch statement?
>
> Fan, Pablo, can you please comment?
Fan? Pablo?
--
David Marchand
